geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Jencks <david_jen...@yahoo.com>
Subject Re: Assemblies assemblies everywhere and which one to ship?
Date Thu, 11 Jan 2007 05:53:38 GMT

On Jan 11, 2007, at 12:01 AM, Jarek Gawor wrote:

> How hard is it to switch between the different assemblies once the TCK
> testing environment is setup? If it is easy enough, maybe we should
> first test all 8 assemblies and then concentrate on only those that
> pass the most tests.

I guess I have the opposite point of view :-).  I suspect if we get  
all the tests passing for each component in one configuration, they  
will pretty much pass in all the other configurations, e.g. if cxf +  
jetty + openjpa works then cxf + tomcat + cayenne will work too, so  
the main chore will be to verify this.  If it's simple enough to run  
the tck this won't be impossibly difficult to test all the  
combinations, just take a bunch of machine time.

thanks
david jencks

>
> Jarek
>
> On 1/9/07, Davanum Srinivas <davanum@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think testing say (Tomcat+Axis2+OpenJPA) and (Jetty+CXF+Cayenne) is
>> enough. All components should be tested at least once. If we get  
>> time,
>> we could do more :)
>>
>> -- dims
>>
>> On 1/8/07, Dain Sundstrom <dain@iq80.com> wrote:
>> > On Jan 7, 2007, at 9:38 PM, David Jencks wrote:
>> >
>> > > On Jan 7, 2007, at 11:33 PM, Matt Hogstrom wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> I was thinking about M2 this weekend and was considering many of
>> > >> the challenges we face in putting out certified releases.  Up  
>> till
>> > >> now the number of permutations has been pretty limited and that
>> > >> has been Jetty and Tomcat.  With Java EE 5.0 life is no longer
>> > >> that simple.  Here are the choices I know of today:
>> > >>
>> > >> Web Container (Tomcat / Jetty)
>> > >> WebServices (Axis 2 / CXF)
>> > >> EJB 3.0 Persistence (OpenJPA / Cayenne)
>> > >>
>> > >> I think this makes 6 different assemblies and of course 6  
>> separate
>> > >> certification efforts.  Perhaps we can do this and perhaps we
>> > >> can't.  Based on where projects are at and their desire to
>> > >> participate in helping to integrate (and do TCK testing :).
>> > >
>> > > ummm 2 * 2 * 2 == 8
>> > >
>> > > I could be very wrong but I thought that the cmp 2.1 support in
>> > > openejb3 was relying on openjpa-specific features.  If so I  
>> wonder
>> > > if it will be tricky to run the tck on other jpa implementations.
>> >
>> > Well, we depend on being able to listen to events on the EM which
>> > there is no spec interface for.  I'm sure Cayanne has and interface
>> > that can provide us with the events, and when they send us the info
>> > we can add a hook for their Impl.
>> >
>> > In general, I think we should just pick a single JPA implementation
>> > to ship with G because it is very easy for an application to  
>> request
>> > a different implementation using specification defined properties.
>> >
>> > Of course that will leave us with 4 javaee assemblies and 2 minimal
>> > assemblies.
>> >
>> > -dain
>> >
>>
>>
>> --
>> Davanum Srinivas : http://www.wso2.net (Oxygen for Web Service  
>> Developers)
>>


Mime
View raw message